Unregistered?[]
Do we know that La Sirena is unregistered? Somebody (I can't remember who, I'll check when I watch the episode again) said that Picard was looking for an unregistered ship, but I don't remember anyone saying that La Sirena was unregistered (whatever that even means). —Josiah Rowe (talk) 00:35, February 7, 2020 (UTC)
- Raffi said it. In the real world, an unregistered ship is one which has no nationality - i.e. it has not been registered to a nation and is not subject to that nation's laws. Many ships involved in piracy, smuggling, and other activities which are best left concealed are not registered.--Memphis77 (talk) 00:43, February 7, 2020 (UTC)
- i.e. Stella was referred to as an "unregistered transport vessel" in "Mudd's Women". --Alan (talk) 02:21, February 7, 2020 (UTC)
Passenger dates[]
I've now twice removed ndashes from the dates for most of the passengers. The fact is that we don't know for certain which passengers will still be on board beyond 2399, and won't until Season 2 airs. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 18:47, April 7, 2020 (UTC)
Registry[]
I wanted to check in before editing the page. Is the registry you added based solely on the tweet by the official Star Trek twitter? Because I had a look at that tweet, and it doesn't strike me as authoritative. The image they use for Sirena is the "Kaplan Heavy Raider" from Star Trek Online and the registry comes completely out of nowhere. (I know the number is the same as CSS La Sirena's, but the rest is made up). They might be hinting that Sirena will be registered in season 3, but so far, we have gotten abslutely no confirmation of this in canon. And frankly, I doubt Seven registered the ship for her Ranger activities.
I would petition moving the page back to simply La Sirena and adding the registry as a beta-canon observation until it gets confirmed. —MappingLaSirena (talk) 10:55, May 21, 2022 (UTC+1)
- So no response isn't always permission to go ahead with what you did, because you literally answered your own question when you stated "the official Star Trek twitter", which is a permissible resource. –Gvsualan (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I was just following the Memory Alpha guidelines that state everyone is allowed to make edits, and you should edit to the best of your knowledge and abilities. My information has always been that in Star Trek, only the things seen on screen are canon, everything else, even Word of God, is beta canon. If Memory Alpha handles this differently, that is definitely a valid choice (one I disagree with, but if it's the community decision I won't argue about it here), but I wasn't aware of it. In that case, a response would have been good, because that's why I asked. Again, I don't think this particular tweet holds much water with regards to canon. It was slapped together haphazardly (from what I heard through the grapevine), the imgae isn't actually of La Sirena, and while the registry was created for season 3, we don't actually know if it's going to appear on screen. So my argument for removing the registry stands. –MappingLaSirena (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, my vote is probably obvious. But just to be clear: I'm an adult, so I won't start any petty editing wars over it. I merely suggest holding off on the registry until we get on-screen confirmation in season 3, at which point it is definitely canon that Rios, Seven of Nine, or whoever the new owner is (maybe the holos ;9 ) registered the ship some time after the end of season 1. –MappingLaSirena (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Word of advice: MA:RESOURCE is what should be understood before implementing your own personal beliefs on a very well established website. –Gvsualan (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Wow, okay XD
I did in fact read and understand the resource policy page, but I do apparently interpret it differently than you do. In my opinion, this isn't just a question of finding the "most complete name" for La Sirena. This isn't like, say, deciding "M'Benga" should be referred to as "Joseph M'Benga", after seeing that name on an official publicity photo. In that case, it's relatively clear that he has always had a first name and this was intended to be his full name all along (disregarding, for a moment, the fact that Paramount pulled those posters before the name was confirmed on screen). So, taking that official poster as confirmation of his first name seems to me like a perfect application of this part of the policy, specifically no.2 of the section on exceptions for material not seen on screen.
However, I am saying that adding a registry to La Sirena is a different case than that. In season 1, the ship is unregistered. As far as I know (and I fully accept it if I'm wrong), we don't have any clear confirmation of what "unregistered" means in the context of Star Trek, but I am fairly sure it includes not having a permanent registry, because that would have to be, you know, registered somewhere ;9 If you have a Starfleet ship that is only referred to as The Pegasus in an episode, it's very sensible to assume it has a registry. It's a Starfleet ship, those are registered. In that case, using a tweet by the official Star Trek twitter account where the ship's registry is mentioned would absolutely count as a valid case of adding clarity, in my opinion, and I would never dispute it. However, as I see it, giving a registry for Sirena does not give us simply a "more complete name" for the ship (according to section 2 mentioned above). Instead, it changes her status from unregistered to registered, something that isn't in any way supported by the text (yet). To me, that appears like information more along the lines of Todd Cherniawsky saying that Sirena is nearly a century old, or her dedication plaque was lost, rather than giving names and registries for the Starfleet ships that appear in the finale of Season 2. We can reasonably assume that all of those ships in the armada have names and Starfleet registries, and adding them does not meaningfully alter canon. We cannot reasonably assume that Sirena has necessarily been registered between seasons and thus has a registry, that is an addition to canon.
Now, as I have said before, even if I disagreed with Memory Alpha's policy here (which, in this case, I don't), this website's way of treating canon is one perfectly valid positions out of several one could take. When I contribute to this wiki, I am going to follow its guidelines to the best of my understanding, even if I disagree with them, because it's what the community has decided. In this specific case, I simply interpret the guidelines differently than you do. However, as I have also said before, I'm not going to start an editing war or be petty about it if you decide to change that section of the article back.
Nevertheless, I reserve the right to lay out my argument and my interpretation of the MA guidelines, and also, I will quote this section from the Memory Alpha:Resource policy: "With that in mind, archivists should at all times be tolerant and respectful of other viewpoints, opinions, and conclusions." I would really appreciate if you would extend me that courtesy. –MappingLaSirena (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)